English: Craig Thomson, Member of the Australian House of Representatives for the Australian Labor Party and Dobell. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Craig Thomson, Tony Abbott, Christopher Pyne, Kathy Jackson, Michael Lawler, Michael Williamson, allegation after allegation, media beat-up after media beat-up. It goes on, and on, and on. Watching, listening, you hear it all, the allegations, the refutations, the breathless excitement of the journalist (so-called) with the latest revelation. The turgid inflammatory article from a noted columnist (so-called). The accusations in parliament, under parliamentary protection. And you begin to become aware of the real power of the English language, the ability for it to place what’s said in an aura of innocence, or guilt without actually saying so. To subtly manipulate the mind of the listener/reader so that the story being told becomes their story, unquestioned, accepted without rationality, without evaluation. How disappointing that those with the capability to tell such stories demean themselves by providing us with trivial sensationalism uncluttered by a desire to carefully examine the issue and report in an unbiased manner presenting all the relevant evidence. Draw a conclusion at the end, certainly, but let it be made based on all the evidence, carefully weighed. That’s ‘carefully weighed’. I’d suggest that those mentioned above look those two words up in the dictionary, so that you know what they actually mean.

So what about Craig? ‘He’s as guilty as sin, a nasty little thieving individual, sucking from the public teat, undeserving of any fair treatment, the presumption of innocence. And, everything he says is a lie!’ So there!! That’s what they say, and because they say it, it must be true. If Craig Thomson says something it’s a lie. If anyone says that what Craig said is not true, then they must be telling the truth, because Craig told a lie. Right? Well wrong actually!Where’s the proof?

So I’m suspending my view of his guilt or innocence. Oops! That little slip of the English probably told you how I’m thinking, maybe? And, I’m going to look at it from another perspective. What would I do if I were Craig Thomson?

Taking money from the HSU for other than legitimate purposes: Given that the accounting system was so (allegedly) woeful and unaudited and I was in a position of such power, even with my half a brain people would have had to dig real deep to track the cash. I note that the Australian Electoral Commission has canned the Fair Work Australia report about misuse of funds for electoral purposes.

Paying for prostitutes on my HSU Credit Card: What? When I can trot down to the nearest ATM and draw out money (classify it as petty cash) and pay anonymously? If I’m such an accomplished liar and shifty character surely I wouldn’t be so dumb as to leave a trail to my enjoyable (but surreptitious) little dalliances? Had a thought about acquiring a separate card and paying on that, but that would be almost as dumb as paying on the HSU card wouldn’t it? I note that a credit card slip published in the media was an imprint for a Mr Thompson, not Thomson.

Using my Drivers Licence as proof of identity: See above. I’m trying to be anonymous here, not shouting from the rooftops! Give ‘em cash, there’s no issue is there? According to Pauline Hansen and some TV station you can nip overseas and get any Australian card you like (including a driver’s licence).

Phoning Pleasure Palaces on my HSU mobile: Nip down the road, buy a pay as you go phone, make sure it’s always (a) out of sight, and (b) on vibrate only. Make your calls to the lovely ladies, as well as any other nefarious dealings, on that. Problem solved.

So that’s about the limit of my amateur criminality. I’m sure that there are lots of people who could come up with much smarter ways of avoiding detection that I.

Despite all the hoo haa, the allegations, the pompous pontification from our media munchkins and the political machinations of a frustrated and opportunistic Coalition, I’m going to reserve my decision and await an outcome driven by ‘rule of law’ not ‘rule of rabble’. And when confronted with further ‘revelations’ I will just smile quietly and say: ‘Ah so desu ka!’

*“Ah so desu ka” is, as I understand it, Japanese for “Is that so?” I gather, from speaking with Japanese friends, that it has various connotations, depending on the manner in which it is spoken. These range from; ‘Oh! Really?’ up to, ‘Yeh! Right. This is a bit fairy tale’.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About deknarf

Australian born and bred who has spent most of his working life in R&D and IP management with earlier forays in the newspaper industry and martial arts. Fortunate enough to be living in one of the best countries in the World, even though I might get grumpy with it from time to time.

Thanks for your comments Tom of Melbourne, comments are always appreciated.
WRT the AWB: My view on this was that there was a politically based cover-up related to this. The recent commentary in the media would suggest that this may indeed have been the case. Will the truth ever come out — doubtful.
I try to make personal judgments based on an evaluation of all the evidence, and on honesty, transparency, ethics and public interest. The key is the ‘evaluation of all the evidence’ and ‘all the evidence’ is now, finally, starting to come to light wrt the Thomson business. Look up Wixxyleaks for other information
I don’t think that I said that people aren’t entitled/capable of forming a view, they are perfectly entitled to do that. In fact, I had already indicated that my view was that Thomson had a case to answer, as now it appears so does Kathy Jackson. I also think that the FWA findings are tainted, but time will tell on that one.
Regards, knarf

Australian born and bred who has spent most of his working life in R&D and IP management with earlier forays in the newspaper industry and martial arts. Fortunate enough to be living in one of the best countries in the World, even though I might get grumpy with it from time to time.